MINUTES OF THE SHAFTSBURY
SOLID WASTE TASK COMMITTEE
JULY 6, 2004,
COLE HALL, SHAFTSBURY, VERMONT
Present: Bill Pennebaker, Trevor Mance, Andrew Knafel, Jim Mead, Forest Snyder,
Barry Mayer, Karen Mellinger, Michael Biddy, Jim Serrrao
Absent: Owen Beauchesne, Mark Young
Public: Audrey and Harvey Rutheiser, David Mance
Chair Bill Pennebaker opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. He noted an editing
correction needed to be made on page 3 of the June 15th minutes, paragraph 4,
line 3: “we realistically may have (added) only six ...” Jim Mead then made a
motion, seconded by Trevor, to accept the June 15, 2004 minutes as corrected.
All were in favor.
Under new business, Bill shared a communication received from Rex Burke (of the
BCRC) which referred to a question raised at the June 1, 2004 meeting. The
question regarded the possible consequences if a town was not in a plan approved
by the State Agency of Natural Resources. They include loss of eligibility for
solid waste management grants, loss of certification for existing or proposed
solid waste facilities from ANR and exclusion of municipalities from the
disposal of solid waste within Vermont unless stringent performance standards
are met.
Bill also shared an e-mail response from Andrea Cohen (See Appendix A) of the
Solid Waste Division of the ANR regarding the same questions the committee had
submitted to Deb Markowitz (Secretary of State) and discussed at the June 1,
2004 SWC meeting. He advised that her interpretations were somewhat different
from those of Deb Markowitz. Forest questioned if there was anything of
significance that was different. Answers were reviewed and Bill pointed out that
neither official had especially definite interpretations of what a town could or
could not do. Both had recommended we seek legal opinion on certain issues.
David Mance pointed out that a common thread in their responses was reference to
little existing case law on these issues. A town might run the risk of challenge
depending on the position it took. Bill made the point that it seems a town does
have the ability to set rules and constraints.
Also under new business, Bill presented to the committee an e-mail received from
David and Trevor Mance re: Shaftsbury’s current solid waste tonnage status. The
amount of solid waste handled in the past 11 months at the transfer station was
522 tons of trash, 95 tons of c & d, 186 tons of paper and 31 tons of
co-mingled. Excluding metal the total yearly run is approximately 960 ton. It
was noted by Trevor (in the e-mail) that this amount, however, excludes any
private hauler pickups. He advised that in light of this information, the
Clifton Park site report should be amended to reflect the fact that their one
day processing volume actually does not equal Shaftsbury’s annual processing
volume. Trevor noted that a more accurate total figure for the amount of all
waste generated in Shaftsbury is closer to 2,000 ton a year.
Bill handed out copies of a science magazine article with information regarding
the environmental impacts of the plastics waste stream. Bill also shared
information he had received from Charles Yoder (Shaftsbury’s representative to
the BCRC) regarding funds available for solid waste management from bottle
deposits in Massachusetts. The bottle companies are required to make deposits
with the State, which are reimbursed to the company when the bottles are
redeemed. However, not all the money ends up being sent back to the companies
(not all bottles are redeemed) and that money which remains with the State is
targeted for solid waste management. It is unclear as to whether Vermont has
such a plan.
Discussion ensued regarding Forest’s question of whether the committee should
endeavor to write position papers on the various issues. Bill suggested this
might help to crystallize ideas. He queried how we should present the
information that has been gathered to the Planning Commission. Bill presented an
analysis he had prepared (Appendix B) on applicable state statute language
regarding solid waste, specifically VSA 24, Section 4409(a) and (b) and VSA 24,
Section 2202 (a) and (b). Section 4409 (a) states that unless the question of
regional solid waste facilities is addressed in our Town Plan, we can have very
limited influence on any proposed regional facility. Provided that “reasonable
provision” is made for regional facilities, Section 4409 (a) implies that town
constraints can be stricter than State constraints. Section 2202 (a) reinforces
this point, stating that municipalities may set rules and regulations for solid
waste facilities provided they are consistent with the State plan and rules.
Discussion continued as to what the town can regulate. Can you regulate actual
tonnage and only truck volume? Andrew pointed out that Sunderland has limited
the Casella transfer station there to 19,000 a year. Karen noted that Williston
has put limits on tonnage handled per year at the landfill - in fact, they have
stipulated that if the circ highway went it the tonnage could increase from
70,000 ton to 120,000 ton per year.
Bill shared a list he had developed following research and our previous
discussions regarding possible provisions to include in a host town agreement
(see Appendix B). With regard to the question of fees to mitigate various
impacts, Barry asked how you can set a fee to mitigate the impact of something
if you do not know what the long term effects might be. David suggested that we
study fee structures set up by other towns and consider the costs of any
necessary infrastructure changes to accommodate the facility. Forest pointed out
that the EPA advises that all landfills will eventually leak. Perhaps a
probability study has been done at some point and we could use that information
to partially base a fee structure on. Mike asked whether a private landfill can
indemnify itself. Andrew suggested a town could perhaps say a private facility
needed liability insurance that would cover them for up to 50 years. Harvey
Rutheiser asked: if we know landfills are a problem, then why not move toward
prevention? Bill noted that it appears state law says a town cannot just say no,
so you have to anticipate problems and set up constraints that would not make it
impossible but would provide safety for the town. We should consider such issues
as ground water pollution, dust, noise, and traffic to be part of any host town
agreement. Forest pointed out that the type of facility matters. Do we want, for
example, six small ones versus one large one? Each host town agreement, it was
agreed, should be tailored to the town and a specific entity.
Bill noted that the committee needs to report to the Planning Board fairly soon
and he suggested that we might want to get a preliminary report them. His hope
is that the committee can come up with language in rough form by the next
meeting and soon thereafter in a form to present to the Planning Board. He asked
Andrew if he had any guidance for the committee regarding how to present the
information. Andrew said as far as language goes it would be helpful for the
Planning Board if there was concise language as to what facilities would be
allowed. Then we need to decide how to construct language for the Town Plan.
Andrew noted that the Planning Board will need information as to what criteria
should be covered - a host town agreement is only one piece of the issue. The
Planning Board will also need to discuss pieces such as the impact of traffic
and the effects of long term landfills and transfer stations. David added that
we have two considerations: language for inclusion in the Town Plan and language
for zoning by-laws. Perhaps the Town Plan language would include more
broad-based guidelines (as the Town Plan is not a regulatory document), and the
specific regulations would be part of zoning. Andrew noted that if we are
thinking about differences and standards for large and small facilities, and
transfer stations and landfills, this should be included in the Town Plan as
well. Any Act 250 review, he pointed out, considers the language in the Town
Plan. David sees the goal of any Town Plan review as looking at where we are and
where we want to go.
Discussion ensued regarding recycling. The State has mandated goals - do we want
to set additional specific percentage goals within the Town Plan? David advised
that unless recycling efforts are addressed in the Town Plan, the town is not
eligible for State recycling grant money. Forest asked why not set specific high
goals for recycling. The concern was how to validate any percentage and what if
you don’t meet the goal. Bill suggested language be included that said the
Town’s intent is to meet or exceed the State’s goal for recycling.
The group discussed the form of the report to be presented to the Planning
Board. Forest was not comfortable with the idea of a specific recommendation; he
would rather present the various options. Andrew felt if would be helpful for
the Planning Board to see the information gathered from the site visits. He also
believes it would be worthwhile for Bill to present the information. Bill noted
that Jim Serrao seems to be firm in his position that no changes in the present
Town Plan need to be made. Therefore, he thought it would be helpful if Jim
prepared a report on this position. When a draft is present to the Planning
Board by the committee, it should include any dissenting positions. Jim agreed
to do so. The committee also discussed the question of how to present
information to the public. The consensus was that any town-wide meeting would
more appropriately be decided upon by the Select Board. However, it was agreed
that Bill, as Chair of the Solid Waste Committee, would draft a report on
progress to date for possible submission to the Bennington Banner as a guest
column. Bill then asked the committee members to prepare for the next meeting
written reports if they had a particular position. Also he asked them to bring
to the meeting any language regarding provisions for a host town agreement and
suggestions for the Town Plan language.
Andrew asked if we wanted to discuss possible zoning by-law language at the next
meeting. David suggested we invite Jim Sullivan of the BCRC to help with any
zoning language changes. Karen asked about the procedure for adoption of any
language changes. David noted that the Planning Board holds at least one hearing
and refers changes to the Select Board, which holds two hearings at least. The
Select Board could then send proposals back to the Planning Board for changes.
Changes could be adopted as interim by-law changes prior to any town-wide vote.
In this case, any specific proposals made prior to a town vote would be
considered under the terms of the interim by-law language. There is continuing
concern that there may not be enough time prior to the November vote to have
adequate time for the warnings and public hearings necessary. Jim Mead referred
communication he had received from Jim Serrao regarding the current moratorium.
Jim Serrao had written to Deb Markowitz (Secretary of State) requesting
information regarding the moratorium and any efforts to extend the nine month
period stipulated. There seemed to be confusion as to her response, in which she
indicated narrow justifications for any moratorium. Ultimately, she had advised
in the e-mail that the town should seek legal opinion before implementing a
moratorium. Jim Mead pointed out that, in fact, this had been done with Rob
Woolmington, the town attorney, and he had advised the present course of action.
A brief discussion of committee membership was held. Andrew advised that Jim
Serrao had been named an alternate to the committee by the Planning Board and
Karen Mellinger was a full member, as Barry Mayer had been unable to attend
several meetings. However, as the group did not anticipate any actual voting
would take place at any time, it was agreed the goal was for inclusive
participation. All attendees to meetings are considered valuable participants
and the committee welcomes and will include in its final report all points of
view.
Trevor made a motion, seconded by Mike, to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. All were in
favor.